Back
1999 Supreme(Del) 70
High Court Of Delhi
TECHNOFOUR ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 5194 of 1997
Decided On : 01/28/1999
K.T.ANANTHARAMAN, MUKUL ROHTAGI, Suhail Khan, SUNIL GOEL, V.BALAJI, V.K.MENON, VIBHU BHAKRU
Headnote:Tender bid Decision making process — No unreasonableness, irrationality or illegality — Technical conditions can only be assessed by experts and not by court — Minor deviation from the conditions is not illegal — Award of tender bid affirmed.
Held:
The action of the second respondent seems to be free from arbitrariness and is not affected by bias or actuated by malafides. There is nothing unreasonable, irrational or illegal in the decision to award the contract to the third respondent.
The question whether or not machine offered by the first petitioner can be immediately used for training purposes and whether or not it is suitable, are the questions which fall in the domain of the second respondent for their consideration. The court cannot venture to go into these questions which are of a highly technical nature.
The question whether a tender fulfills the prescribed conditions which are of technical nature must be left to the judgment of the experts as they are equipped with technical knowledge and experience. This Court does not have the expertise to consider technical matters. No undue interference with the selection of a tender is warranted unless the opinion of the experts is found to be vitiated by irrelevant, irrational and extraneous considerations. It needs to be noted that the various expert committees examined the tenders of the parties and it was for them to assess the merits and demerits of the machines offered by the tenderers. As noticed earlier, the petitioner filed a representation before the World Bank with regard to the acceptance of the tender of the third respondent. The World Bank on consideration of the representation did not find any reason to interfere with the acceptance of the tender of the third respondent. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners overlooks the fact that the offers are required to meet the major parameters. A minor deviation in some parameter which does not have any significant implications is to be considered accept- able. The affidavit filed by the Deputy Controller of Stores clearly points out that the offer of the third respondent met all the major parameters as specified in the bid document. thereforee, the feed rate offered by the third respondent was found acceptable. In the circumstances, the pleas raised by the petitioners can not be sustained.
( 1 ) BY these writ petitions the petitioners challenge the action of the second respondent, Controller of Stores, Central Organisation for Modernisation of Workshops, in awarding Tender No. COFMOW/hrd/icb-086/96 for supply of 47 nos. CNC Mill Trainer machines and Tender No. COFMOW/hrd/icb-O99/96 for supply of 115 nos. CNC Trainer Lathe machines to the third respondent-M/s. Denford Limited.
( 2 ) THE International Development Association and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development advanced loan to the first respondent, Government of India for technical education projects. In this connection, the second respondent invited two tender enquiries - (1) Tender No. SCOFMOW/hrd/icb/086/96 published on November 11, 1996 for supply of 47 nos. CNC Mill Trainer machines, and (2) Tender No. COFMOW/hrd/icb-099/96 published on November 30, 1996 for supply of 115 nos. CNC Trainer Lathe machines, and services connected with the machines, namely, supervision of erection and commissioning thereof. The first petitioner which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Pune, Maharashtra, and the third respondent, a company incorporated in England and having its agent Machine Tools Aid Bureau at Chennai, submitted their tenders. Besides the first petitioner and the third respondent, various other parties also submitted their bids. The first petitioner claims that it is an established manu- facturer of CNC control machines and it has been making sup- plies of the machines to the various companies including Larsen and Toubro, Sandvik Asia, Telco and for various World Bank assisted projects etc. The first petitioner also claims that it participated at various exhibitions and was awarded various awards for its products.
( 3 ) WHILE tender No. COFMOW/hrd/icb-086/96 was opened on January 22, 1997, Tender No. COFMOW/hrd/icb-O99/96 was opened on February 3, 1997. Thereafter certain clarifica- tions were sought from tenderers including the first peti- tioner. Ultimately the bids of the third respondent were accepted for supply of the above said machines and services connected therewith, namely, supervision of erection and commissioning thereof. The first petitioner and the second petitioner, a shareholder and director thereof, feeling aggrieved of the award of the contracts in favour of the third respondent, have filed the instant petitions.
( 4 ) SINCE the facts of both the writ petitions are almost similar and grounds of challenge are also the same, it will be convenient to deal with Writ Petition No. 5194/97.
( 5 ) THE petitioners have, inter alia, raised the follow- ing grounds:-
1. The tender of the first petitioner though lower than the third respondent has been rejected on arbitrary grounds.
2. The ambient temperature at which the equipment has to operate in certain places is 50 degree celsius but that requirement has been reduced by the second respondent to 40 degree celsius to suit the third respondent.
3. The evaluation of the petitioner s offer has been made on wrong basis inasmuch as an amount of Rs. 41,000. 00 representing the cost of "tutor Software" has been added thereto though it was optional for the second respondent to buy or not to buy the same. In fact the "tutor Software" was not an essential item and the machines could be used for training purposes without it.
4. The Technical Committee was not right in its view that separate manuals for teachers, students and over- head projectors slides were not submitted with the bids of the first petitioner.
5. The third respondent failed to submit fix quota- tion in accordance with the tender notice.
6. The tender of the third respondent was unrespon- sive for the following reasons:-
(I) The machines offered by the third respondent can run only on 230 volts as against tender requirement of 230 volts +_ 10% ).
(II) The third respondent had offered only 9 collets as against the tender requirement of 16 collets.
(III) The f
